Imagination is both a friend and a foe of science. It is a foe in the sense that it tends to be unrealistic, illogical and anti-scientific. It has a tendency to make something appear appealingly true without evidence. Examples of unbridled imaginations are myths, legends, fictions, and fabrications, among others. What science does is to challenge imagination to be in accord with nature – that is, to conform to that which we can observe and demonstrate through our senses.
At the same time though, imagination helps a scientist to conceive of new ways to interpret a body of data obtained through empirical investigation. The difference is that imagination this time is constrained by what is reasonable, logical and what is amenable to testing.
Therefore, scientists are free to imagine as wild as they can to explain a huge body of findings in a coherent way; but, aside from the fact that it should explain all the findings, it should also make testable predictions. When the predictions are correct, then we have more confidence that the “imagined” explanation is correct. In essence, this is what a scientific theory is. In scientific jargon, it is more than just being a guess or suggestion.
Theories, in fact, make science meaningful and interesting. Without theories, science will just be a boring collection of facts, principles and laws that are not able to explain much, or anything at all. A theory connects all these pieces together and explains their relationships. The most imaginative ones are usually those who come up with the best theories. Think about Darwin and Einstein and the proponents of the Atomic Theory, the Cell Theory of Life, the Germ Theory of Disease, and the Big Bang Theory.
The core of science is actually a collection of interrelated and overlapping theories. Some are already very old and have been continually confirmed by newer findings and these are the ones that we have the highest confidence. It is from this collection of established theories that science draws its power to explain any old or new findings.
Some theories that are new or those that are on the forefront of scientific developments are still waiting for further confirmation; and we are thus less confident of their accuracy (examples are various theories on aging). Oftentimes, as new findings come up, there is a need to revise some aspects of a theory or theories that seek to explain them. It also happens that one of many conflicting theories is favored by recent findings and the others are dropped.
Furthermore, old and established theories can still be challenged and later revised or even discarded in favor of a better one. It is then obvious that with this overall dynamic nature of science, it cannot claim absolute certainty or absolute knowledge of truth. There are only probabilities – that is, the more established theories are those having a very high probability of being right. However, this is in fact the best humanly possible means of knowing the truth. Other means of knowing, like revelation or mystical inner self-enlightenment, offer no rigorous standards and safeguards against error.
Science is never complete and not all questions can be answered through this approach (or at least not yet now). Although it is possible to live life with the bare minimum of science and reason as guiding principles, it is always tempting to go beyond these. After all, our imagination is able to create an unrealistic world that is more dramatic (like, we are saved from the bondage of sin by a loving God), more magical (with the miracles and the angels), more meaningful (everything is an act of worship) and more pleasurable (hmmm…heaven!).
Recent Comments